Tesla K20c vs Quadro M6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M6000 and Tesla K20c, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
M6000 outperforms K20c by a whopping 242% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 227 | 556 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.41 | 0.16 |
| Power efficiency | 8.66 | 2.82 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM200 | GK110 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 21 March 2015 (10 years ago) | 12 November 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,199.99 | $3,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro M6000 has 781% better value for money than Tesla K20c.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3072 | 2496 |
| Core clock speed | 988 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1114 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 8,000 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 213.9 | 146.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.844 TFLOPS | 3.524 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 40 |
| TMUs | 192 | 208 |
| L1 Cache | 1.1 MB | 208 KB |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 1280 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 5 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 208.0 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 3.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.14 | 8.24 |
| Recency | 21 March 2015 | 12 November 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 5 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 225 Watt |
Quadro M6000 has a 241.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 140% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Tesla K20c, on the other hand, has 11.1% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K20c in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
